Empirical Distribution Models for Slenderness and Aspect Ratios of Core Particles of Particulate Wood Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particle geometry was characterized for particleboard furnish prepared through hydrolysis of finished commercial particleboard procured from six Canadian plants.Particles samples were screened into seven particle size classes.Particles retained on 0.5-mm mesh were considered core particles and further partitioned into core-fine, medium, and coarse.Individual particles were then randomly selected for geometrical characterization and distribution fitting.About 80% of all screened particles by mass were between mesh sizes of 0.5 and 2 mm.There were significant differences in percentage screen masses of all particle sizes between plants.Masses of particle size greater than 1 mm of panels from two plants were significantly higher than the rest (0.05 a-level), whereas another plant had the highest mass of particle sizes retained on the 2-mm mesh.Particles retained on the 1-mm mesh showed the largest percentage mass variation among all plants.It was found that aspect ratio was a better geometrical indicator for predicting screw withdrawal resistance than any of the absolute dimensions, and increase in core-fine particles increases internal bond strength.Based on maximum likelihood and Akaike's Information Criterion, a log normal distribution was the best fit for all geometrical descriptors of most particle types; gamma and two-parameter Weibull were better fits for length and aspect ratio for most medium particles with gamma being the better of the two.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".